When the government moves to strip a defendant of his counsel of choice, does the court have any obligation to hold a hearing to inquire and determine what the facts are vis-a-vis Cuyler v. Sullivan?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) When the government moves to strip a defendant of his counsel of choice, does the court have any obligation to hold a hearing to inquire and determine what the facts are vis-a-vis Cuyler v. Sullivan? If not, does this meet the constitutional minimum for right to counsel of choice under the sixth amendment? 2) Whether a forged, fraudulent, altered plea petition in apparent violation of federal law under 18 USC §1512(c)(1) rises to the level of “extraordinary circumstances! sufficient to satisfy the standards of 60(b)(6)? 3) Whether a judgement based on a plea that was tampered with is from its inception, a null and void judgement, and sufficient to satisfy the standards of 60(b)(4)? 4) Whether when a court disregards or ignores all of the defendants motions, pleas, complaints, i.e., refuses to let the defendant be heard does this meet the constitutional minimum for due Process under the Fifth Amendment? 5) Does an appointed defense panel attorney who is the putative ‘author' of a document have any obligation to inform the court who tampered with the document, i.e., the plea petition? 6) Whether the panel of circuit Judges M. Smith and Lee . Introverted the statutory order of operations, by applying the wrong standard in denying Cabello's petition for Certificate of Appealability, in contravention of the controlling and unambiguous hold of the Supreme Court in Buck v Davis that clarifies the standard for COA,